Written by Minorwork
Editor’s note: due to a technical snafu this post may not have made it to the front page here at LTS. So we decided to re-post it.
Science is a crude invention. Quit reading and go out and do it. You’ll find out.
Does it help determine in a half hour phone call whether or not to bail a daughter from jail? Or how many days to let her stay there? Three nights but not determined by science.
Economists, and geologists in the mine, are scientists in their respective fields. Both are good at telling why there was a fall but not so good at preventing it.
Does science help decide whether and when a son is to accelerate his fathers dying process?
What has the scientific method determined is the best way or even if to tell a brother his daughter is not his?
And can a person apply science’s methods on whether to advise, or not, a grandfather making his will as to which is his blood grandchildren?
Science is crude because it has no jurisdiction in areas of life. Hell, how many are able to live without knowing what constitutes the scientific method?
Why is there something rather than nothing? Didn’t have that in physics or chemistry.
Consciousness then. I forget what class covered its formation, structure, and classifications much less its contents.
Can science tell me what in the hell my wife was thinking when she blew up our car’s engine after continuing to drive, and faster at that, with no oil pressure? Please science, help.
What is the correct scientifically engineered method to nullify religious fanaticism?
Here’s the most practical justification for calling it crude.
I’ve pursued science and engineering in school and used, of necessity its methods for arriving at truth with practical problems on the job at the coal mine. I’ve found it my last choice to use in troubleshooting. Many other methods are superior by reason of time involved in their application compared to the scientific method. The scientific method is slow and crude in application when there are faster and more precise troubleshooting techniques available. For example:
Face boss runs up and tells me to get my tools the miner is down. What would the scientific method have me do? Question. Why doesn’t the miner come on when I press the start button? Educate. Consider the electrical schematic. Hypothesize. Wire has burnt in two, switch not closing, faulty hold in coil, bunch of other stuff. Test. Walk 4 crosscuts to the power center and lock and tag out the miner cable. Return to the miner and open up explosion proof panels (15 bolts each) on both sides of the miner to gain access to test points and start metering circuits. 30 minutes of testing fails several times to find a fault and finally a test reveals the stop button is open. The current must flow thru it to hold in the run circuit. Open it and the hold-in coil is de-energized thus cutting power to the pump motor. SUCCESS. Fix the stop button and close up the miner. Check the explosion proof covers with a .004 inch feeler gauge all around and it slides in. Take all the bolts back off and find a piece of dirt in the flamepath. Clean it and install door and recheck. Do the other panel door. Go back to the powerbox, unlock the plug of the miner cable, screw it back to the power receptacle. Pull the breaker on. It goes off with a bang and sparks. Son of a bitch. Do it again and it stays set. I’m the man. Get a paid lunch.
Two hours shot in the ass with the scientific method when one of the non-scientific methods would of got the problem fixed in less than 5 minutes at the most and still get a paid lunch. Science might get you the answer, but it is slow. Crude. No I’m not gonna’ tell the quick way. That’s job security and worth a lot in leverage.
I have to admit that the scientific method will get the job done eventually if the quicker methods fail or do not apply given that the problem is amenable to the constraints of the scientific method in the first place. I made my own conditions at the mine on my understanding of the scientific method but I didn’t like to use it and was always my last choice.
The everyday questions that haunt me in relationship issues with family is where science sings like a pig. Another reason that I call it crude. Science considers and is concerned with things that are placed within its reach by being measurable. But there are more things not capable of being measured than those that are. Lots of stuff in the world that can’t be measured. How long did I fantasize about Jessica Alba’s or her double’s performances in Sin City in 2006? How am I supposed to get that info today? Carbon dating?
In a narrow aspect from Newtonian mechanics, to spooky quantum entanglements and teleportations, the accomplishments of science would be magic of the highest sort if viewed from the perspective of 2000 years ago. But improving life span to 77 years or so is not doing much considering what was done without science in the 3.5 billion years leading up to one of its breakthroughs with Galileo’s outlandish, (in a time of truth determination by the best debater’s view), technique of contrived tests. Science has not been necessary to evolutionary development.
And then there are applied sciences. What does applied science even mean when psychology cannot squeeze itself thru the narrow door of real science without widening it with the sledgehammer of pharmacology?http://www.arachnoid.com/psychology/index.html
How convincing is science when only 32% of the public Think that humans, other living things have evolved due to natural processes. http://people-press.org/report/528/
Ive had a buttfull of this for now. Fun though.
Science is crude due to its slow, paced, application in getting to knowledge. It is the best method to determine truth if you cant use anything else and you can find an area in which it applies. Scientific theories are only theoretically 100% correct all the time until theyre proved wrong. Sciences limits are described in the engineers mantra Cheaper, better, faster. Pick two. Like the engineers mantra science has its limits and its applications are in a rather narrow field of endeavor in the human experience. The coal miner has no respect for the engineers mantra and is able to provide all three parameters in a solution. He is not bound by the scientific method alone. It is not only possible but preferable to avoid the scientific method. A crude invention.